Where is the Flaw in most Multichannel Preamps/ AVRs?

[er|κzvio1in]

I would differ slightly by saying that the HTx is quite good as a balanced active crossover for my 4 way speakers. And e-arc is still useful, since in my case it functions as the equivalent to a 12v trigger, turning on the MiniDSP when I turn the TV on, and in turn the MiniDSP turns my amp on via 12v trigger. That was unexpected, but quite welcome.

To be fair, stereo balanced active 4-way crossover in one device is quite a niche application.

 

[Fredygump]

To be fair, stereo balanced active 4-way crossover in one device is quite a niche application.

A device like this is uncommon in home audio, but it is much more common in pro audio. I have been petitioning MiniDSP on their forum to give users the option to have PEQ, delays, and crossovers on the inputs, atleast for people who choose not to use Dirac. If they added these features, it could be a compelling option for live sound. Good quality devices designed for this purpose cost a few thousand dollars, so a lot more than the HTx.

In pro audio, there are a few "reasonably priced" signal processors, but the audio performance isn't great. Atleast the one I had was quite noisy...hence my fascination with solving the problem of eliminating noise!

The MiniDSP HTx has the form and most of the function of a pro audio signal processor, but is dressed up as a home theater device. So it's a slightly confusing hybrid. I know what I need it to do, and it is a good fit for me. But I really do want those other features I've been asking for!

 

[er|κzvio1in]

It only has output channel filters, noth ok Ng for the inputs?

 

[Fredygump]

It only has output channel filters, noth ok Ng for the inputs?

Yes.

I imagine they decided to leave these out because it would become confusing trying to manage input settings when switching between multiple inputs? And you're supposed to pay extra for Dirac anyway.

 

[er|κzvio1in]

Yes.

I imagine they decided to leave these out because it would become confusing trying to manage input settings when switching between multiple inputs? And you're supposed to pay extra for Dirac anyway.



View attachment 363554

How many peq slots per output channel?

 

[Fredygump]

How many peq slots per output channel?

HTx output functions:

10 PEQ/ channel
up to 30ms delay,
crossover: mostly Butterworth, but there are a couple linkwitz-riley, and a Bessel (12dB/ octave)
Invert signal
Compressor

To make this a "pro audio" device, they would to need to increase delay times, and then copy all these functions to the inputs.

Someone said the "Flex" unit does have input PEQ, but that unit is unbalanced only. I probably could survive without balanced inputs, but I consider my purchases to be a vote in favor of the features I want. Balanced connections are the only cable upgrade in the audio world that might make an audible difference.

 

[er|κzvio1in]

HTx output functions:

10 PEQ/ channel
up to 30ms delay,
crossover: mostly Butterworth, but there are a couple linkwitz-riley, and a Bessel (12dB/ octave)
Invert signal
Compressor

To make this a "pro audio" device, they would to need to increase delay times, and then copy all these functions to the inputs.

Someone said the "Flex" unit does have input PEQ, but that unit is unbalanced only. I probably could survive without balanced inputs, but I consider my purchases to be a vote in favor of the features I want. Balanced connections are the only cable upgrade in the audio world that might make an audible difference.

And can you apply the trick of importing biquads into the crossover banks to increase the number of PEQs?

 

[Fredygump]

And can you apply the trick of importing biquads into the crossover banks to increase the number of PEQs?

I don't know.

 

[Deleted member 58670]

Someone said the "Flex" unit does have input PEQ, but that unit is unbalanced only. I probably could survive without balanced inputs, but I consider my purchases to be a vote in favor of the features I want. Balanced connections are the only cable upgrade in the audio world that might make an audible difference.

The Flex has option for balanced inputs and outputs, but only on the 4ch version. The 8ch Flex8 is unbalanced only, and has no analog inputs either.

What’s really funny is that the good old Behringer DCX2496 is still around, and has a lot more functionality…..

 

[Fredygump]

The Flex has option for balanced inputs and outputs, but only on the 4ch version. The 8ch Flex8 is unbalanced only, and has no analog inputs either.

What’s really funny is that the good old Behringer DCX2496 is still around, and has a lot more functionality….

I think it is inaccurate to describe "different" functionality is either "more" or "less". And then there is the question of audio quality, where the Behringer is lagging far behind. So yeah, not sure how the Behringer is relevant to this discussion.

 

[Ze Frog]

It's kind of about building to a price point in my eyes. When you think a 2 channel mainstream amplifier can be say £1000 and in most cases me standard fare, acceptable, average or a shade above average, imagine then creating an amplifier with 12 channels for even double that price and matching the power output on each one. Soon the performance will certainly have to degrade to allow the budget to be realized.

If a company charges X amount for 100w amplifier, then has to do that X12, in a specific footprint, at a certain weight to ease shipping costs, with extra features and AVR needs and pretty quickly you realise that either a) two channel stuff is massively overpriced. Or b) the AVR is a product of considerably less quality. That's always been my take.

 

[Oddball]

I would tend to agree with you. There is one aspect of x12 and associated multi-ch content that is IMO a bit different than for 2 ch audio. With only 2 ch, people seem to really get into both of those really deep and it is much easier to focus on any potential flaws in the performance. With x12 channels banging all around you, honestly, there is just no time for such focus. Perhaps just my perception, or lack of ability to have sharp focus on 12 ch at all times, but could be that there are others with the same issue.

Recently was doing some adjustments on the 400W/4ohm Bryston 4B SST that is powering my center and replaced it with 180w/4ohm Rotel RB 1070 (1/3 of Bryston by weight and parts) and honestly could not really tell the difference in 7.4.4 system performing at -10dB to reference volume. I could notice some difference (Bryston being the better one) if I turned off all the other channels though, but that's really not the real world use case though. Probably could still tell the difference in the blind test as know my gear for years, but it seems that for multichannel audio you can get away with lower specs as you just can't perceive each individual channel with the same sharp focus you can for 2 ch audio.

 

[Ze Frog]

I would tend to agree with you. There is one aspect of x12 and associated multi-ch content that is IMO a bit different than for 2 ch audio. With only 2 ch, people seem to really get into both of those really deep and it is much easier to focus on any potential flaws in the performance. With x12 channels banging all around you, honestly, there is just no time for such focus. Perhaps just my perception, or lack of ability to have sharp focus on 12 ch at all times, but could be that there are others with the same issue.

Recently was doing some adjustments on the 400W/4ohm Bryston 4B SST that is powering my center and replaced it with 180w/4ohm Rotel RB 1070 (1/3 of Bryston by weight and parts) and honestly could not really tell the difference in 7.4.4 system performing at -10dB to reference volume. I could notice some difference (Bryston being the better one) if I turned off all the other channels though, but that's really not the real world use case though. Probably could still tell the difference in the blind test as know my gear for years, but it seems that for multichannel audio you can get away with lower specs as you just can't perceive each individual channel with the same sharp focus you can for 2 ch audio.

Yeah, there is definitely an argument that with so many channels the quality needed can likely be lower. Still, saying that I'm sure some AVR's actually beat many a dedicated amplifier. Just strikes me really odd as to how they can be so cheap compared to their 2 channel when factoring in all the extra stuff.

I'm guessing economies of scale plays a part as outside of the enthusiast segment I'm guessing a large majority don't really see a need for 2 channel stereo, hell most people I know are happy with a soundbar of Bluetooth speaker, ughhh(shudders), lol.

Could be argued maybe AVR is the sensible choice really for an all around do all product really.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

With x12 channels banging all around you, honestly, there is just no time for such focus. Perhaps just my perception, or lack of ability to have sharp focus on 12 ch at all times, but could be that there are others with the same issue.

In my experience, that is simply not the case. Just as with two channels, a proper multichannel system will present an integrated soundstage in which the individual speakers (and their locations) are not audibly separable. OTOH, if you (or your host) chooses to play recordings which are intentionally mixed/mastered to artificially emphasize multichannels by throwing voices/instruments into discrete channels, it is not a criticism of multichannel that it can do that, too.

To complete this, I find it easier to be absorbed into the music with a good multichannel recording/system than with a two-channel system because the recreated ambiance is more naturally encompassing.

 

[Oddball]

In my experience, that is simply not the case. Just as with two channels, a proper multichannel system will present an integrated soundstage in which the individual speakers (and their locations) are not audibly separable. OTOH, if you (or your host) chooses to play recordings which are intentionally mixed/mastered to artificially emphasize multichannels by throwing voices/instruments into discrete channels, it is not a criticism of multichannel that it can do that, too.

To complete this, I find it easier to be absorbed into the music with a good multichannel recording/system than with a two-channel system because the recreated ambiance is more naturally encompassing.

My reference was to movies or shows, probably should have emphasised. Little time I have I choose to spend with video. Music I still enjoy but on the go.

And as I noted how many things at the time a person will be able to focus is very individual in all aspects. I tend to focus perfectly on two things at the time, but third one seems to throw me off.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

And as I noted how many things at the time a person will be able to focus is very individual in all aspects. I tend to focus perfectly on two things at the time, but third one seems to throw me off.

I understand that. Do you have such a limitation in the real world?

 

[Oddball]

Don’t find that as a limitation but rather a choice in real life. Find that I can do most by limiting focus on two things at the time, resolving them and then moving on to the next pair.

For audio, definitely can’t focus on 12 different channels at the time - but obviously can determine the overall impact and differences in how these 12 perform to the best of my ability - not being a professional at that aspect.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Don’t find that as a limitation but rather a choice in real life. Find that I can do most by limiting focus on two things at the time, resolving them and then moving on to the next pair.

At my age, I often find it difficult to handle even two at a time, so we are almost in the same (leaky) boat. OTOH, I don't have any trouble focussing on the music at a concert with 100 players.

For audio, definitely can’t focus on 12 different channels at the time - but obviously can determine the overall impact and differences in how these 12 perform to the best of my ability - not being a professional at that aspect.

But that's my point. Listening to stereo, I do not focus on 2 channels but on the music disassociated with the speakers. Same for multichannel but it's even easier because it is a better simulation of the situation at the live event.

 

[Fredygump]

In my experience, that is simply not the case. Just as with two channels, a proper multichannel system will present an integrated soundstage in which the individual speakers (and their locations) are not audibly separable. OTOH, if you (or your host) chooses to play recordings which are intentionally mixed/mastered to artificially emphasize multichannels by throwing voices/instruments into discrete channels, it is not a criticism of multichannel that it can do that, too.

To complete this, I find it easier to be absorbed into the music with a good multichannel recording/system than with a two-channel system because the recreated ambiance is more naturally encompassing.

I'm interested in your comment because I'm asking myself if it is worth building a multichannel system. I have had multichannel systems in the past, but I don't think I got much benefit from them. Atmos/ "spacial audio", plus the trend of movies having more robust LFE tracks makes me curious.

I sold my last surround sound system years ago and used the money to buy a 2.1 Genelec system. That was over 10 years ago. Now I've moved on to building my own speaker system, and just wondering how surround sound has changed in the interim.

 

[SoundsGood2Me]

Has anyone mentioned Toppings' DM7 8CH Balanced DAC?
Supposedly runs around -123dB S/N

DM7 8CH USB DAC-TOPPING